RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Why the First Amendment?

Monday
February 1, 2010

Why the First Amendment? by Tibor R. Machan

All the fuss about the various US Supreme and other court rulings pertaining to campaign contributions would, I believe, subside once the matter were put into the right framework, namely, the exercise of the right to private property. It is not about free speech but about freedom to use what belongs to one as he or she--or they-- see fit. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (60 messages)

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 3:08pm

Jordan:

Under what circumstances is it okay for an individual to give money to a candidate? When it's a bribe, you say it's not okay. Why? Under what principle? This would need to be reconciled with the claim that people always have in individual right (that doesn't violate those of others') to use their money however they please.

By bribe I assume you mean giving money to a government official in order to have some kind of interference made into the marketplace on their behalf. So if that's the definition we're working with, than it violates laissez-faire Capitalism.

If I'm wrong in that assumption, could you tell me how you are defining bribe?

My ship metaphor is of course an explanation, not a definition. And it is apt: People run ships; people aren't ships. Similarly, people run corporations; they aren't corporations.

A corporation is a business arrangement between individuals. It doesn't make sense to equate this with a "ship". A ship is an inanimate object, it does not describe a relationship of individuals. A corporation isn't a building, a computer, or any other inanimate object. When a corporation gives money, it means the individuals in the corporation who have been tasked by other individuals to handle their money may give it to a political campagn. It is a consensual relationship.

If you don't wish to grant the freedom to corporations to give money as they please, you don't believe business owners and their duly appointed agents are allowed to spend their own money. How do you propose a business operate if they can't freely spend the money they have? Would you prefer state-controlled businesses?

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 3:21pm

Jordan,

I believe that John and I both answered your questions. There is no such thing as a right to violate a right. There should be no law on the books that permits a conspiracy to divert taxpayer money or to provide favorable regulations (favoring one party at the expense of violating the rights of others) where a special interest buys that kind of corruption. Nor should there be any exemption for criminal actions of the form where a politician extorts contributions under a kind of protection scheme ("pay me or I pass unfavorable regs.")

I said very clearly that his is not a free speech issue - read post #10.

You asked if I know the difference between a corporation and a partnership. I sure hope so. I'm the president of the board of a registered corporation with over 100 employees and a multi-million dollar budget, and in past years I was the CEO and majority stockholder in a privately held C-Corp.

You asked, "are you saying that under Objectivism a government should not seek to protect elections from violence and corruption?" Why would you even ask something like that? I said that governments are instituted to protect individual rights - of course they must ensure the integrity of an election and of course the government should pursue corruption and violence - by the way, 'violence' has never entered into this argument before (unless you are saying that a contribution is a form of violence).

You said,

Another point: Participating in an elections process, and how, seems markedly different from other actions to which there are correlative rights. There does not seem to be a naturally manifest, morally derived right (as Objectivists rights are so construed) entailing how elections process are to work and how we may participate in them. One vote per individual? All votes equal? 18 year age minimum? Do these parameters, respectively, violate your individual right to vote however many times you want, or to weight your vote, or to vote prior to your 18th birthday?

What part delegating the right to self-defense to a government doesn't seem related to the Objectivist philosophy? The details of implementing the principles in the form of a structure, may present themselves as alternatives. Some options may be compatible with Objectivism and many more would not be. This is the realms of political science, legal philosophy, and principles of law to work out. Objectivism has the responsibility for the basic principles up and through political philosophy - not the details that follow. In the realm of political science and law, those parties carry the responsibility of creating principles, policies and practices that don't violate the underlying Objectivist principles.

Take your examples: One vote per person? Seems reasonable for political science and administrative law to arrive at that since moral rights arise for an individual and the government is instituted to defend individual rights. All votes equal? Again, the fact that moral rights arise out of being human it seem they start equal (unless we are talking non-humans) but that wouldn't preclude a context that changes things in ways that do not violate individual rights. A criminal gives up some rights in the commission of a crime - he was equal, but chose not to stay equal. A person has the right to give up a right (I can choose to exchange some of my freedom to act, in exchange for a salary that comes with restrictions). I never had a right to vote many times, since the right to vote once is a legal right, not a moral right. And the "once" part of this arose properly out of rights being individual and universal in nature. A 10 year old has the right to live, but may not be capable of defending themselves adequately due to emotional/intellectual immaturity and lack of education and experience. They have guardians/parents to exercise to look after their rights till reaching majority. That political philosophy is implemented in more detailed principles in political science and law.

It is disengenious to ask for Objectivism to provide answers to all questions. It is a philosophy, not a Theory of Everything and Answer to all Questions.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 3:23pm

Steve Wolfer wrote:

It is the same with the treasurer. When he writes a check on a corporate account he is within the corporate bylaws, the articles of incorporation, their fiscal policy and his job description... or he is not. And the management or board that directed that check be cut is acting within the same set of rules and within the good business rule of thumb... or not.

I'm glad to see you admit that the treasurer might be acting improperly.

You said, "Stockholders do not buy stock for the express purpose of the corporate management to make contributions to political candidates." That is a straw man argument since I never claimed it was "the express purpose."

That's a very odd claim. It would be a straw man if I misrepresented your position, but I did not misrepresent you. "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position" (from Wikipedia). I said your analogy was weak.

We don't know with any certainty the motives of all stockholders as so far as why they invested in company xyz, but we assume that for most it was to safely store value while hoping to make a profit. We don't know if a corporation's management's decision to contribute to a campaign would upset stockholders or make them happy.

I believe there are feasible ways to know -- see the 2nd half of my post 13.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 3:28pm

Merlin,

I'm no longer clear as to what you are objecting to regarding the basics of this thread.

Do you believe that the government should be able to regulate corporate contributions to a candidate or party in the absence of any evidence of specific conspiracy or wrong-doing in a specific case?

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 3:36pm

My business is set up as an S-Corporation.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 4:51pm

Jordan,

See this:

Here.

I'm still not sure what you see as a problem, unless you view corruption as human nature's ethical default.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 6:50pm

Teresa,

The guy on that video makes several good points but misunderstands the McCain-Feingold Act as well as the Court's somewhat nuanced ruling in Citizens United, and he forgets that the corporate press are constitutionally different from other corporations. I certainly don't think corruption is human nature's default (that comes off to me as an unfounded, nasty insinuation), nor have I made up my mind about Citizens United and related issues.

John,

Bribery, it can exist even in a laissez-faire capitalist system. Do you and Steve acknowledge that corporations are abstract legal entities that cannot arise from mere contract alone? If you don't, then you don't understand the corporate structure. Go learn about it in those other threads. My concern here is how a government may prevent corruption in the elections process.

Steve,

I recommend that you read Ex Parte Yarbrough if you haven't already, especially since it establishes the constitutional basis for government protection of elections. (That's where I got 'violence' from. I didn't need to include that in my rhetoric.) You might also enjoy skimming the Citizens United opinion. In it you'll find some interesting discussion on the worry of "quid pro quo" corruption, which you mentioned in one of your last posts.

I said that governments are instituted to protect individual rights - of course they must ensure the integrity of an election and of course the government should pursue corruption and violence

Okay. How? Certainly by curbing people's actions, by which actions? Presumably none that correlates to an individual right. I think it'd help if you or someone else would explain, with an example, how bribing a candidate violates someone's individual rights, then offer some acceptable laws for curbing such bribery. (Eventually, we can shift from bribery to other alleged instances of corruption, but that'd be premature at this point.)

See, as with the parameters in voting (equal, evenly weighted, 18 years minimum), so too might there be alternatives in the "details of implementing the principles in the form of a structure" when it comes to other parameters of participating in elections. Somehow the "details of implementing the principles in the form of" the McCain-Feingold Act, which includes law against bribing candidates, goes awry in some way for discussers here. I want to know the principle(s) whereby one can delineate between the individual right to use money and the government's ability to protect the integrity of elections. (I expect that principle to address how spending money is sometimes an individual right, and when it comes to elections, sometimes not.)

Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't expect Objectivism do provide all the details. I can see how my rhetoric might have given that impression. I just want to see how people here treat the issue under that philosophy.

All, I'm swamped in the bricks and mortar world. I'll need to reduce my participation in this thread. If others have a clue as to what I'm exploring, feel free to jump in.

Jordan

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 7:19pm

Jordan:

Bribery, it can exist even in a laissez-faire capitalist system.

Well obviously. So can murder. But the point is under such a system it would be considered illegal.

But again, a campaign donation cannot intrinsically be considered a bribe. It requires a quid pro quo, and specifically the kind that calls for an interference into the marketplace.

Do you and Steve acknowledge that corporations are abstract legal entities that cannot arise from mere contract alone? If you don't, then you don't understand the corporate structure.

Basically it sounds like you object to the idea of a corporation itself, never mind that it's owners and agents can donate money on behalf of their company. You don't even think they ought to exist, correct? I believe this is one of Phil's thing on these forums. But quite frankly I don't really understand the objection. His concern was that corporations can off-load risk onto other people, yet this is done with just about any other individual through things such as personal bankruptcy laws. It's a symptom of a mixed-economy, but no individual can honestly claim they have not been the beneficiaries at some point in time of a government intervention. So really if we were to apply this principle consistently, that corporations being the beneficiary of government interference should mean they shouldn't be able to donate to a political campaign, the same should be extended to every other individual in this country.

My concern here is how a government may prevent corruption in the elections process.

Did I not address this? I'll quote what I said earlier, I don't understand why you keep repeating your arguments, this discussion is becoming circular.

"...the fact that our government does not have as Rand called it a "clear separation of state and economics" is why there is so much corruption. Corruption would not even be an issue if the law forbids government from interfering in the market. If an elected official forcibly took money from some to give to another, whether motivated by bribes or corrupt philosophical premises, it should be illegal just the same."

That would be the first step. If there was still corruption, then it would be a police matter and the offender should be arrested.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 8:32pm

I just wrote this column and some here might find it provocative.

Are Corporations Persons?

Tibor R. Machan

Actually, no one thinks corporations are persons but some do believe they are groups of persons. No one thinks orchestras, or football teams or universities are persons but many do think they are variously configured [groups of] people. If this is so, then they, as groups of persons, have rights, including the right to private property and freedom of speech.

When people come together for some common purpose, they do not lose their basic human rights. So all the hollering about how the recent Supreme Court ruling about whether corporations have the right to engage in political advocacy, based on the allegation that corporations aren�t persons, is off base.

Even those who oppose the ruling implicitly acknowledge the above. Thus Justice Stevens, the major dissenter on the Court, wrote, that �[T]he distinctive potential of corporations to corrupt the electoral process [has] long been recognized.� But only persons can corrupt something! Theodore Roosevelt advocated prohibiting "all contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose." And this, too, implies that corporations are made up of people, people who have rights! There is no other way corporations can make contributions--buildings, trees, land, the sea, none of these can make contributions, only people can. Ergo, corporations are people!

In any case, I have no idea what else corporations would be. Yes, they have some kind of legal identity but that is completely derivative of their being made up of people. Usually, it is a bunch of people who get together and incorporate--now that monarchs no longer create such associations--which is to say they form a specific type of organization, usually involving pooling some resources and hiring specialists to administer these resources either for profitable or non-profitable purposes. But whichever it is, it is persons who are doing this and nothing else. You may not like those types of persons but in a democracy they have the right to obtain and wield political power.

Now it is true that when people unite with one another, they tend to gain in influence, even power, if power is at issue. Sadly, given how much politics is not a matter of upholding principles, as the American Founders envisioned it, but of confiscating funds and then distributing them--that whole redistribution thing that candidate Obama had out with Joe "the Plumber"--having united powers can go a long way to gaining political clout. But this has nothing to do with corporations as such, which are perfectly benign outfits unless they commit crimes, just as this is so with individual citizens.

So then what is up with all the corporate bashing? Mostly that if you aren't a part of the corporation but a lot of others are, it is they and not you who will wield more political power. And if one believes in democratic politics, why complain about this? If a huge company, owned by thousands of stockholders and other investors, exerts power, such is democracy. You cannot cherry pick which group of citizens should get democratic power and which should be ignored.

The remedy for out of control corporate political influence and power is to limit democracy to very few tasks in the country, such as the selection of public officials. They will then represent those who elected them but not by doing them special favors but by helping in extending the principles of the country to new and uncharted areas of the law.

I am no corporate attorney, nor a constitutional scholar but our legal system must make sense to all citizens, not just to experts. And as a plain, ordinary citizen it seems to me that all the derision extended toward corporations amounts to rank prejudice, bias, as a generalized dislike of movie actors or farmers would be. This is nothing to be proud of, that's for sure, even if it is widely accepted and practiced. So was racial prejudice once. Not that those who have shares in or manage corporations are all fine people, not by a long shot, but neither are all doctors, teachers, engineers or bureaucrats upstanding citizens. At any given time the bulk of the members of a profession could be engaged in malpractice or be decent in how they conduct themselves.

But there is no reason to suspect those who own or run corporations of any greater predilection toward malpractice than anyone else. Sometimes, of course, they operate in a system that encourages corruption, which the welfare state clearly does, what with all the selling and buying of political favors it involves. And big firms will probably be able to get more from politicians than little ones. That, however, is the problem of the system, not of any given profession.
(Edited by Machan on 2/04, 5:58am)

(Edited by Machan on 2/04, 5:59am)

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 9:32pm

Jordan:

Under what circumstances is it okay for an individual to give money to a candidate? When it's a bribe, you say it's not okay. Why? Under what principle? This would need to be reconciled with the claim that people always have in individual right (that doesn't violate those of others') to use their money however they please.

Ultimately bribery means paying a government official to do something he legally and constitutionally shouldn't, either use the force of the law to stop a legitimate action by a third party, or to fail to use force legitimately against someone who has broken or wishes to break the law. It is ultimately a subversion of the legitimate use of force. (Even procedural subversion is improper, since it is a violation of equal protection, and depends on the bureaucrat's power to withhold approval he should not have the power to withhold.) How can this be confused with donating to the campaign of an candidate who proposes to execute or make or legitimate changes in the law by constitutional means that you happen to support?

My ship metaphor is of course an explanation, not a definition. And it is apt: People run ships; people aren't ships. Similarly, people run corporations; they aren't corporations. It's as impossible for people to become ships as it is for them to become corporations. If you don't get this, you don't understand the nature of corporations. Corporations are a legal structure separate from the individuals involved with them. They are invented and designed by law. In the absence of such law, it is impossible to have a corporation.

You could just as well say that corporations are cuisinarts, since people run cuisinarts, but people aren't cuisinarts, and it is impossible for people to become cuisinarts. You analogy fails because it is negative in form. Further, if, as you say, corporations are invented and designed by law, and in the absence of such law, it is impossible to have a corporation, then would you say that ships are invented and designed by law, and that n the absence of such law, it is impossible to have a ship?

These are particularly weak arguments.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 2/03, 9:35pm)

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 9:36pm

How sad that people anywhere would find that column provocative - and especially sad that there are RoR members that would find it so.

No way I could have said that any better (to be honest I'd never be able to say it as well :-)

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 9:54pm

Perhaps it would be helpful to describe how free speech and campaign contributions ought to work:

First, the government ought to be limited to strictly defined powers, and very little of those, so there would be very little power to be brokered or bought, and thus not much incentive for corruption.

Second, anyone or any collection of individuals ought to be able to spend however much of their money they want on political speech, and say anything they want, even if blatant falsehoods, leaving the rebuttal to their opponents, and with the voters as arbiters of truthfulness. Campaign spending limits would vanish. People would be free to dispose of their private property as they saw fit, so long as they weren't purchasing other people's rights via bribes.

Third, politicians receiving campaign contributions ought to be required to disclose who gave the money, and how it was spent, so the public could examine those records for evidence of bribery or other influence buying.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 10:02pm

Well, Jim, it's typical that a shoddy architect like you who has been repeatedly sued for breach of contract and once been brought up on charges of negligent homicide should think it's okay for people to utter blatant falsehoods with the full protection of the law.

Thursday, February 4, 2010 - 5:32am

I am the sole shareholder, officer, and employee of an "S" Corp, and sign both sides of my paycheck.

Please tell me why you and someone else acting as a partnership should be able to do with the money you earn what I can't do with the money I earn, when it comes to advocating for people who represent me at the CronyFest on the Potomac.

Because that helps explain why the self-employed have been sold out, when it comes to being forcefully prohibited from freely associating for the purpose of obtaining group rates for their health insurance.

Please explain to me what 'social good' is achieved by hosing over the self-employed, so I know where to piss.

Thursday, February 4, 2010 - 5:47am

Jordan, so you concede that contributions dont equal bribery?

Thursday, February 4, 2010 - 5:54am

Steve Wolfer wote:

I'm no longer clear as to what you are objecting to regarding the basics of this thread.

I thought this was a philosophical discussion, e.g. are campaign contributions about free speech or private property? I took the private property part of it to a greater degree. If a corporation makes campaign contributions, whose private property (money) is it really?

Do you believe that the government should be able to regulate corporate contributions to a candidate or party in the absence of any evidence of specific conspiracy or wrong-doing in a specific case?

Not in the sense you probably intend. However, if the government were to say corporate money (or union dues) cannot be given to political candidates without at least tacit consent of individual stockholders (or union members), then I'd consider it, since it is in the direction of individual rights. I can't imagine enough politicians among the current bunch who would ever consider such a rule, so it's not politically feasible anyway.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 2/04, 8:34am)

Thursday, February 4, 2010 - 5:57am

Some have raised the issue of why managers of business corporations might decide to make campaign and other non-business related contributions of stockholders' resources. If the bylaws make provisions for the delegation of this authority, then there is nothing in principle wrong with it although in particular cases they could be called into question--but then so could any other decision by management. Ultimately the most decisive shareholder protest is, of course, to sell one's stock, to pull out of the enterprise. But businesses make all kinds of contributions, to churches, art centers, charities, etc., for a variety of reasons that would be overseen within the companies' operations. Of course political contributions are insidious but in the welfare state it is nearly impossible to live without them (Bill Gate tried to, without success) since politicians involve themselves, often uninvited, into the business affairs of firms. I suppose such contributions could be defensive, too, supporting politicians who oppose the system and work to dismantle it. (As to the problem of foreign companies gaining leverage with government, once again this isn't the fault of businesses but of the system that lets government mess with the economy.) Finally, a bribe is bad because it induces government officers to subvert the rules they are supposed to uphold, to bend them to favor some players as against others. Do all political contributions do this? Well, as noted earlier, not necessarily but when they do try, they are wrong but there is hardly anything the can be done without revamping the system.

Thursday, February 4, 2010 - 6:59am

Here is an interesting site about campaign contributions. I clicked on the top 10,000. The NEA is #1 and the SEIU #5, with most of the money going to state-level candidates.
(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 2/04, 7:22am)

Thursday, February 4, 2010 - 9:55am

After 37 posts, I don't believe anyone answered my original question. It might be answered in the SCOTUS ruling, but I have not read it. My first post asked

will foreigners be able to help sway elections and issues with large inputs of cash? I think any American whether far far left or far far right has the inalienable right to use his money, his property, anyway he wishes to sway voters.

But what about foreigners, if and only if we are not to know who they are?

What I mean, if I'm not clear, is whether non-Americans will be able to contribute to affecting our elections and our issues? Do they have to declare who they are, if they are allowed? I don't want the unfriendly government that owns "Corportation X" registered in the U.S. and doing real business of one sort or another, nor "Corp. A" which is not friendly either, to have any effect on our system.

And I'm sorry I'm not being around more often. My computer is crashing a lot.

Thursday, February 4, 2010 - 10:04am

If you had a clear separation of state and economics, and if the law prescribed legal sanctions against elected officials should they try to interfere in the market, what would be the incentive for foreign companies to donate money to a political campaign?